Key Takeaways
- A coalition of Second Amendment organizations filed an amicus brief challenging Pennsylvania’s ban on firearm carry for adults aged 18 to 20.
- The brief supports the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kareem Mohammed Williams Jr., questioning age-based firearm restrictions.
- The argument hinges on the historical context of the Second Amendment, asserting that young adults were historically included as ‘the people’ entitled to carry arms.
- The filing claims Pennsylvania has failed to justify its restrictions under the Bruen framework, lacking historical support for age-based firearm bans.
- The outcome could significantly impact regulations for adults under 21, reinforcing the broader question of constitutional rights and age restrictions.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
PHILADELPHIA, PA – A coalition of major Second Amendment organizations has filed an amicus brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court challenging the state’s prohibition on firearm carry by adults aged 18 to 20.
The brief was filed in support of the appellant in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kareem Mohammed Williams Jr., a case that directly addresses whether law-abiding young adults can be barred from carrying firearms for self-defense. The filing was submitted by the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and Firearms Owners Against Crime.
According to the Second Amendment Foundation, the case impacts thousands of adults under the age of 21 across Pennsylvania. These individuals are currently prohibited from carrying firearms for personal protection despite being legal adults.
In a statement, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros said the state’s restriction conflicts with the legal standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bruen decision. He said the ban denies young adults their Second Amendment rights without any historical tradition supporting age-based restrictions at the time of the nation’s founding.
The brief argues that adults between 18 and 20 were historically considered part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. It states that individuals in this age group were required to keep and bear arms for militia service and were commonly armed for lawful purposes such as self-defense.
The filing emphasizes that, under the Bruen framework, the government must justify firearm restrictions by showing they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. According to the brief, Pennsylvania has failed to meet that burden.
More from USA Carry:
The argument presented to the court states that there were no Founding-era laws prohibiting 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms. Instead, historical records show widespread requirements for individuals in that age group to possess and carry arms.
The brief also challenges the lower court’s reliance on later historical laws from the 19th century. It argues those laws are too recent and too inconsistent to establish a valid historical tradition under the standards outlined by the Supreme Court.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said the organization has made protecting the rights of young adults a priority. He said the filing is part of a broader effort to ensure that lawful adults are not denied their constitutional protections based solely on age.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for how states regulate firearm carry for adults under 21. SAF is also involved in similar litigation on this issue, including a case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
From a broader perspective, this case highlights an ongoing legal question about whether constitutional rights can be restricted for a class of legal adults. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The historical record outlined in this filing reinforces that this right has long extended to young adults. For lawful gun owners, the case represents another step in defining how courts apply the Bruen standard and whether age-based restrictions can stand when they lack historical support.
Read the full article here
